“…Qure.ai, Delft Imaging and Lunit were the only software to perform significantly better than the intermediate reader 2 | Feng B et al [ 24 ] | European Radiology (2020) | CT images of 550 patients with solitary solid pulmonary nodules (SSPNs) | This study comprised an evaluation of the database from two hospitals in China | CT-based DLN. The deep learning signature (DLS) model was developed using the CNN method | The AUC in the training, internal validation and external validation cohorts were 0.889 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.839–0.927), 0.879 (95% CI 0.813–0.928), and 0.809 (95% CI 0.746–0.862), respectively The CT-based Deep Learning Nomogram (DLN) can preoperatively distinguish between LAC (adenocarcinoma) and tuberculous granuloma (TBG) in patients presenting with solitary solid pulmonary nodules (SSPNs) |
3 | Huang T et al [ 25 ] | Journal of Healthcare Engineering (2021) | 100 patients | The Second Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Quanzhou, China | A new lung CT image segmentation algorithm (U-Net + deep convolution (DC)) was proposed based on U-Net network and compared with the CNN algorithm | The specificity (94.32%) and accuracy (97.22%) of CT image diagnosis based on U-Net + deep convolution algorithm was significantly higher than traditional diagnostic method (75.74% and 74.23%), and the differences were statistically significant ( P < 0.05) |
4 | Khan FA et al [ 26 ] | Lancet Digital Health (2020) | Authors included 2,198 (92.7%) of 2,370 enrolled participants: 2,187 (99·5%) of 2,198 were HIV-negative, and 272 (12·4%) had culture-confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis | Indus Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan | Authors compared two software’s, qXR version 2.0 (qXRv2) and CAD4TB version 6.0 (CAD4TBv6), with a reference of mycobacterial culture of two sputa. They tested for non-inferiority to preset WHO recommendations (0·90 for sensitivity, 0·70 for specificity) using a non-inferiority limit of 0·05 | For both software’s, accuracy was not inferior to WHO-recommended minimum values (qXRv2 sensitivity 0·93 [95% CI 0·89–0·95], non-inferiority P = 0·0002; CAD4TBv6 sensitivity 0·93 [0·90–0·96], P < 0·0001; qXRv2 specificity 0·75 [0·73–0·77], P < 0·0001; CAD4TBv6 specificity 0·69 [0·67–0·71], P = 0·0003) |
5 | Lakhani P et al [ 27 ] | Radiology (2017) | Four deidentifi... |
…”